Occupier's liability for a contractor's faulty work (Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 s.2(4)(b))

Section 2(4)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 provides that where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger due to the faulty execution of any work of construction, maintenance or repair by an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not to be treated without more as answerable for the danger, if in all the circumstances it acted reasonably in entrusting the work to an independent contractor and took such steps (if any) as it reasonably ought to satisfy itself that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done. Lift repair is specialist work that it is reasonable to entrust to a contractor. Elmhurst chose an accredited, well-established firm with good references and obtained a test certificate; it could not be expected to inspect the cable itself. It has therefore discharged the common duty of care, and Priya's claim lies against Liftline, whose engineer was negligent.

Why B is wrong: Section 2(4)(b) allows an occupier to discharge its duty by reasonably entrusting work to a competent contractor and taking reasonable checks.

Why C is wrong: The common duty of care under the 1957 Act is a duty of reasonable care, not strict liability.

Why D is wrong: Priya was a lawful visitor, so the 1957 Act, not the 1984 Act, governs her claim.

Why E is wrong: A warning is not required here; the occupier is protected by having acted reasonably under s.2(4)(b), and a warning alone would not necessarily suffice anyway.